K.S.A. » Chapter 02
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 2-302 (2026)

Petition for tax levy election; time of election

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2-302. Petition for tax levy election; time of election. Whenever a petition shall be presented to the board of county commissioners of any such county, signed by at least one thousand of the qualified electors thereof, requesting the submission of a proposition to levy an annual tax for the purposes mentioned in this act, it shall be the duty of the county commissioners of such county to cause such vote to be taken at the next general election to be held in such county: Provided, The same shall be held within sixty days after the time when such petition shall have been presented. Otherwise, said commissioners shall immediately call a special election for such purpose. Said special election shall be held within sixty days after the date upon which such petition shall have been presented.

History: L. 1915, ch. 178, § 2; March 27; R.S. 1923, § 2-302.


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1996 · leading case: Wille v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 549 P.2d 903 (Kan. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wille v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 549 P.2d 903 (Kan. 1976). · cites it 2× “757; 1 Anderson on the UCC, § 2-302, and cases cited therein.) Important to this case is the concept of inequality of bargaining power.”
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996). “With respect to plaintiffs’ uncon-scionability argument, UCC § 2-302 provides: *1342 If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may…”
Hawes v. Kansas Farm Bureau, 710 P.2d 1312 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “757; 1 Anderson on the UCC, § 2-302, and cases cited therein.) “Important to this case is the concept of inequality of bargaining power.”
Adams v. John Deere Co., 774 P.2d 355 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “As has been pointed out: “‘[The language of the comment to § 2-302 means] . . . that mere disparity of bargaining strength, without more, is not enough to make out a case of unconscionability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.